felger continues his depth rant

[SVN]

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=164841

i dont understand, which other team has more depth ? there are only 53 people allowed on the roster ...

 

[BradyManny]

Felger just needs to find something to complain about sometimes.

How many teams have backups as good as Jarvis Green? Very few. The Pats thrive on their depth.

Also, one important note is that we would have even more depth if it weren't for the injuries to Gardner, Jones & Mitchell. To say we went out and did nothing this offseason is stupid - we signed 3 guys who could provide versatility, depth and great special teams. They all just happened to get season ending injuries, which sucks, but Felger can't blame that on BB or Pioli.

 

[FirstAndGoal]

Felger reminds me of a guy who has never played anything but Pong. He makes declarative statements about the overall state of the Pats but has no football insight at all. His thing with 3 reasons why the Pats/will/won't win thing is about as dumb as it gets and when he tries to analyze the game, I laugh at how he waits for others to fill in the broad strokes.

 

[Oswlek]

Just another media member that decided that marketing to the mass-ingnorant is better than providing insight and analysis.

Not much of a surprise, really. Although it is amusing how much Felger is like a dog with bone. He just keeps chomping on certain issues and any time some tries to free the story from his grip, he growls menacingly so he doesn't have to let go.

 

[BelichickFan]

It's weird, we have good depth. Chad Scott has looked good for Hobbs. Hawkins has looked good for Wilson. Jarvis can stand in for Seymour. We have two quality RB. Dave Thomas looks like a capable #3 TE. Even the WR, we may be lacking at #1 and #2 but the #4 and #5 are better than last year. When healthy, Kaczur will have trouble beating out O'Callaghan.

Weird, Felger, weird.

 

[brady2brown]

I can't keep up with his rants. He had three or four just for Corey Dillon alone. FIrst he yammered aobut how Corey would be a locker room cancer and how he'd blow up when his carries were reduced. Then it was how he would blow up when Maroney got carries and how he would pout and not talk to Maroney, then he was all washed up.

Between that and "we lost Banch and Givens and other Pats WRs will never amount to anything and then first we can't rely on TEs and then why aren't we using the TEs more and Brady's body language was bad at the Denver game and we need to sign a big name DB and why do they always sign big names like Starks who are washed up and our LBs are too old oops wait a minute they are now too young and on and on and on ....

You'd need a program to keep up with his rants. Why bother? He is obviously saying anything controversial that he can to "improve" his show ratings. He even turned on Borges once.

 

[patsox23]

Um...am I the only one here who didn't think he was ranting? Am I the only one who read that article, expecting it to be negative and found that, for the most part, he was saying he'd been wrong so far and thought the depth was improved? I can't stand Felger either, but I don't think this thread is a fair or accurate of that column.

Thoughts?

 

[brady2brown]

Um...am I the only one here who didn't think he was ranting? Am I the only one who read that article, expecting it to be negative and found that, for the most part, he was saying he'd been wrong so far and thought the depth was improved? I can't stand Felger either, but I don't think this thread is a fair or accurate of that column.

Thoughts?

You could be right. I didn't read the article in question. I was talking obout his rants in general, but also I figure I know enough of his rants I can fill in the blanks without actually having to read his words. If he was saying that we have more depth in the DL than most any other team in the NFL then good for him.

 

[Fencer]

Um...am I the only one here who didn't think he was ranting? Am I the only one who read that article, expecting it to be negative and found that, for the most part, he was saying he'd been wrong so far and thought the depth was improved? I can't stand Felger either, but I don't think this thread is a fair or accurate of that column.

Thoughts?

I'm with you completely in your reading of the column. He was

A. Admitting his error.
B. Writing an easy column be regurgitating issues he'd raised before.

As somebody who's been known to sweat at great length over a monthly column, I have a lot of sympathy for B.

As for the issue of actual depth -- the Patriots are about two high-quality LBs from having equivalent depth to what they had in their depth glory years, when Felger and everybody else rightly credits them for having the greatest pro footballd depth accomplishments of all time.

 

[patsgo]

why people in this forum feel the need to post everything this guy says is a head scrather for me, you might as well post what elmo or barney says

 

[p8ryts]

I read the article after reading Patsox23's comment. Actually it was complimentary noting how the teams depth had already paid dividends and could the defensive line depth do the same thing tonight.

After expecting the worst, it seemed right on the mark.

 

[Robdude]

I would have to say he did a good job with this article. He even went so far as to admit he was wrong on the Pat's depth

During the 2006 offseason, the Pats didn’t do nearly enough to improve their depth, despite the luxury of so much salary cap space. I felt it would be their undoing.

Six games into the season, that fear appears to be unfounded. The “middle class†has played well, and the Patriots are 5-1 because of it.

Also from the article

The Pats were able to survive the Bengals and their prolific passing attack largely because veterans Artrell Hawkins, at safety, and Chad Scott, at cornerback, have been a revelation so far. Both lack the top-end speed of the players they fill in for, but Hawkins brings an intelligence and consistency to the last line of defense and Scott has been delivering body blows all over the field.

Here he hits the nail on the head. I like Hobbs and Wilson but I have no problems with Hawkins and Scott back there. Both are solid players that play well in the system

 

[mgteich]

You cheated. You actually read the article (a very good one). Most here just ranted about Felger's article with no idea of what it actually said.

I would have to say he did a good job with this article. He even went so far as to admit he was wrong on the Pat's depth

During the 2006 offseason, the Pats didn’t do nearly enough to improve their depth, despite the luxury of so much salary cap space. I felt it would be their undoing.

Six games into the season, that fear appears to be unfounded. The “middle class†has played well, and the Patriots are 5-1 because of it.

Also from the article

The Pats were able to survive the Bengals and their prolific passing attack largely because veterans Artrell Hawkins, at safety, and Chad Scott, at cornerback, have been a revelation so far. Both lack the top-end speed of the players they fill in for, but Hawkins brings an intelligence and consistency to the last line of defense and Scott has been delivering body blows all over the field.

Here he hits the nail on the head. I like Hobbs and Wilson but I have no problems with Hawkins and Scott back there. Both are solid players that play well in the system

 

[JoeSixPat]

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=164841

i dont understand, which other team has more depth ? there are only 53 people allowed on the roster ...

I'm with you... part of the whole "middle class" philosophy is that the Patriots wooed quality backups in free agency by offering more money in a cap contstrained NFL.

The flood waters were opened this year with the CBA and all of the teams were exceptionally active in free agency except us... we still had quite a few quality middle class guys signed, but the salaries - effectively unchanged - are now relatively lower given other GMs spending like drunken sailors.

The Pats will again be players next season I expect when there's less of a FA feeding frenzy - but none of that means that the Patriots no longer have high quality backups.

And again, to your point, its not like we have more than 53 spots, or have a polarized roster with a handful of premium players and everyone else getting the minimum

Bottom line is that the criticism is pointless right now - if they need more depth they are not exactly looking at the cream of the crop among unsigned free agents right now